By Evarist Baimu Nyaga Mawalla - Home

this was a finding that the judge, however inadvertently, had failed to observe afundamental rule of natural justice,; that a person accused of an offence should be toldwhat he is said to have done plainly enough to give him an opportunity to put forward anexplanation or excuse that he may wish to advance. The questions in the instance appealis whether this constituted a deprivation of liberty otherwise than by due process of law,within the meaning of section 1(a) of the constitution of Trinidad and Tobago of 1962,for which the appellant was in entitled to redress by the way of monetary compensationunder section 6.In 1979 there was no right of appeal from an order of a judge of the high court finding aperson guilty of contempt of court and ordering him to be punished for it. An appeal didlie to the judicial committee of the privy council but only by special leave of thecommittee itself. So the appellant sought an immediate means of collateral attack on theorder of Maharaj j. on the very day of his committal he applied ex part by notice ofmotion to the high court in purported pursuance of section 6 of the constitution,claiming redress for contravention of his constitutional rights under section 1 of theconstitution and for a conservatory order for his immediate release on his ownrecognizance’s pending the final determination of his claim. The nature of the redress thathe claimed was (a) a declaration that the order committing him to prison for contemptwas unconstitutional, illegal, void and off no effects ; (b) an order that he be releasedfrom custody forthwith; and (c) an order that damages be awarded him against theattorney-General “ for wrongful detention and false in prisonment;” “ together with aclaim for all such other orders etc. as might be appropriate. Both the attorney- generaland Maharaj .j were named as responded to the notice of motion but only the attorney –general and Maharaj j. were named as respondents to the notice of motion but only theattorney –general was served and from the out set the motion has been proceeded withagainst him alone. The exparte application come before Braithwaite j. on April 17, 1975.he granted the conservatory order; and the appellant was read in this context: section 1and 2are subject to section 3 but section 6 is not. In considering redress under section 6 itis only necessary to look at section 1or 2 in order to discover what the fundamental rightsand freedom are. Section 4 (1)of the Trinidad and Tobago order- in- council (1962 S.I.1875) is relevant to the construction of section 6. what was done by the judge was53